Cloud Strife wrote:I'm at a loss really as to what exactly the point of the article was, apart from glorifying the Hearns? Or maybe that was the point?
It seemed to want to arse-kiss the Hearns, whilst at the same time promote Klitschko vs Joshua. Which is kind of fine with me, as the Klitschko fight is legitimately a big fight. (Unlike a lot of stuff Uncle Eddie promotes.) Also, if the Hearns have such a small ego that they have to go to newspapers to write articles about how wonderful they are, that's not really our problem. Let them schmooze around and get the attention, if that's what they consider to be a productive use of their time.
The bit that annoys me was Hearn prattling on about how there's no characters in the game, and how he wants more people to be maverick. If he wants them to be maverick, stop fining them every time they swear on Twitter, you senile old fart.
Though my interest has waned recently, I do like a bit of boxing. But I object to the World Snooker chairman basically doing an interview where he goes; "Well, snooker is a bit marmite. But look, my son's promoting a Klitschko fight, pass the Vaseline." That fights promotes itself, so why doesn't he turn his attention back to what he is supposed to be doing? Running World Snooker.
I know that every year some articles come out round Crucible time, where some talentless journalist pretends the fact that he has never heard of most top-16 snooker players (which is easy enough to google) proves that snooker is rubbish. But does the nonsensical 'Snooker is marmite, it was better in the 80s' story have to come from Hearn this year?